Engineering Education Systems in Japanese Universities

In Memoriam: Dr. Clive L. Dym (1942–2016)

Is Engineering Education Research Global?Although there has been an increasing focus on the globalization of Engineering EducationResearch (EER) in recent years (Borrego and Bernhard, 2011; Cheville, 2012) to what extent hasEER become globalized? To test such a claim we hypothesized that author and citation data fromUS and European journals would demonstrate globalization.We assumed that with respect to globalization the Journal of Engineering Education (JEE) isrepresentative of US EER journals and the European Journal of Engineering Education (EJEE)of European. Author affiliations were collected for all authors from the 2010 through 2013issues. Whereas affiliations of EJEE authors were fairly evenly distributed around the globe witha slight preponderance of European researchers over those from North America, Australia, Braziland South Africa, almost 90% of JEE authors were from the US.Second, a list of frequently cited sources was developed, and the country of professionalaffiliation for each source was determined. We initially started with the list of 33 frequentlycited sources in JEE from 1993 through 2002 (Wankat, 2004) and added to this list otherfrequently cited authors. The sources were separated into three groups based on geographiclocation: US, Europe, and Other (all other countries). Citations were counted from regular papers(excluding editorials and guest editorials) and self-citations were not included.Table 1 shows that citations in JEE are dominated by sources with US affiliations, which doesnot support our hypothesis. On the other hand, the EJEE data show that while US sources arefrequently cited, European and Other authors are also well represented. The short answer to ourtitle question is that in citation terms, European EER is global but US EER not.The data in Table 1 also reveal a number of other interesting observations. For example, of the33 top sources on the original JEE list (Wankat, 2004) only 14 occur in the top 33 in Table 1(Felder, Sheppard, Atman, Johnson & Johnson, Smith, NSF, Olds, Seymour, Hewitt, Astin,Agogino, ABET, and NRC) - sic transit gloria mundi. Some US authors such as Kolb andBorrego are relatively better known in Europe than in the US. Regional differences are clear insome cases – for example, the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) is heavily cited in JEEbut only twice in EJEE, and UNESCO is significantly cited in EJEE but was not cited in JEE.On the other hand, ABET was heavily cited in both JEE and EJEE. Table 1: Highly cited authors in EJEE and JEE (2010 – 2013) EJEE Authors JEE Authors Rank Author Citations Region Rank Author Citations Region 1 Felder, RM 50 US 1 Felder, RM 58 US 2 Kolmos, A 32 Europe 1 NAE 58 US 3 Johnson, DW & RT 27 US 3 Sheppard, S 56 US 4 Smith, Karl 24 US 4 Atman, C 41 US 5 ABET 22 US 5 Bandura A 36 US 6 De Graaff, E 16 Europe 6 Johnson, DW & RT 35 US 7 Trevelyn, J 15 Other 7 Besterfield-Sacre, M. 33 US 8 Marton F 14 Europe 8 Eccles, J. S. 32 US 8 Biggs, J. 14 Europe 8 Smith, Karl 32 US 10 Atman, C 13 US 10 NSF 29 US 11 Borrego 12 US 10 Olds, B 29 US 11 Kolb, DA 12 US 10 Shuman, L 29 US 11 NSF 12 US 10 Terenzini TP 29 US 11 Sheppard, S 12 US 14 Latucca 28 US 11 UNESCO 12 Europe 15 Miller, R 26 US 11 Woods, DR 12 Other 15 Ohland, M 26 US 17 Miller, R 11 US 17 Seymour, E 25 US 17 Baillie, C 11 Other 18 Simon HA 21 US 19 Prince MJ 10 US 19 Adams, Robin 20 US 20 Dym, CL 9 US 19 Astin, AW 20 US 20 Stice, J 9 US 19 Hewitt 20 US 20 Alpay, E 9 Europe 19 Newstetter, WC 20 US 20 Lindsay, E 9 Other 23 Dym, CL 19 US 20 Lohmann J 9 US 23 Litzinger T 19 US 25 ASEE 8 US 23 Prince MJ 19 US 25 Jonassen D H 8 US 23 Streveler, R. 19 US 25 Gill J 8 Europe 27 ABET 18 US 28 Besterfield-Sacre 7 US 27 Agogino 18 US 28 Seymour, E 7 US 29 NRC 17 US 28 Streveler, R. 7 US 30 Vygotsky, LS 16 US 31 Bandura A 6 US 30 Marton F 16 Europe 31 Olds, B 6 US 32 Johri A 15 US 31 Case, Jennifer 6 Other 32 Kuh, GD 15 US 32 Cross, N 15 Europe 32 Latour, B 15 EuropeReferencesBorrego, M., & Bernhard, J. (2011) "The emergence of engineering education research as aninternationally connected field of inquiry." JEE, 100, 14 - 47.Cheville, A. (2012) IMS 2012 Special Sessions: Globalization of Engineering Education andResearch: Opportunities and Challenges https://ieeetv.ieee.org/conference-highlights/ims-2012-special-sessions-globalization-of-engineering-education-and-research-opportunities-and-challenges-alan-chevilleWankat, P. C. (2004) “Analysis of the First Ten Years of the Journal of EngineeringEducation,” JEE, 93, 13-21.

The education system in Pakistan is suffering a lot of challenges in this modern world of advanced technologies. The engineering and technical education system is implementing modern techniques to improve the quality of education. The current disaster of coronavirus has badly affected the operation of engineering education in Pakistan, and student and faculty members are suffering from several issues in implementing a successful online education of digital semester. Each stakeholder has their own problems to make online education efficient. A questionnaire survey has been conducted with students as well as faculty members of engineering disciplines from different institutions. Different problems and issues are discussed with both stakeholders to observe the flaws which have been suffered by Pakistan’s higher education in the engineering sector. The effect of teacher’s academic profile, their attitude, professional field experience and advanced skills were discussed with 1000 students randomly. Similarly, 100 faculty members were questioned regarding the problems of the digital education system and pandemic effects on their performance. Various observations are concluded with this short survey-based research, and some suggestions are provided to improve the quality of education in this pandemic situation. The proposed solutions include the training sessions for teachers to get quipped with digital technologies, enforcement of lab sessions by opening all institutions at least one day a week, and professional experience requirements for the eligibility of academic staff.

This essay is a call for world-systems analysis of education. Increasingly, the field of comparative education is moving toward more sophisticated examinations of education in relationship to economic, political, and social forces. Studies of the ecology of educational institutions and processes, however, often fail to take into account an international context of transactions. To date, most macro studies of education have taken the nation-state as the basic unit of analysis.' An examination of the international forces impinging upon education systems is no less essential than an examination of the international economic order would be to an

The central and state governments of India have been pursuing several reforms in the higher education sector. In engineering education, the government has already embarked on several reforms within the current legislative framework. Given this dynamic momentum, the engineering education sector in India is expected to receive a significant boost over the next few years. It is therefore timely to take stock and review the position of the sector internationally. This study thus aims to provide the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and relevant stakeholders with key facts, reliable data, and the results of relevant international comparisons to establish a common ground and to help in measuring the performance of the current engineering education system in India. The government also recognizes the importance of lessons that may be learned from the other Brazil, the Russian Federation, India, and China (BRIC) countries, and these countries were therefore selected for the comparison. This report is organized as follows: section one gives introduction; section two briefly discusses the background of both general higher education and engineering education in India. Section three reviews earlier comparative studies on international engineering education. Section four describes the scope of the study. Section five explains the methodology of data collection and identifies the data sources. Section six outlines the analysis of the collected data and the findings. Section seven presents conclusions. The appendixes describe the engineering education systems of the various countries examined in the study, the related challenges and opportunities, and the future policy goals in each country.

Matthew W. Ohland is Professor of Engineering Education at Purdue University. He has degrees from Swarthmore College, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and the University of Florida. His research on the longitudinal study of engineering students, team assignment, peer evaluation, and active and collaborative teaching methods has been supported by over $14.5 million from the National Science Foundation and the Sloan Foundation and his team received Best Paper awards from the Journal of Engineering Education in 2008 and 2011 and from the IEEE Transactions on Education in 2011. Dr. Ohland is Chair of the IEEE Curriculum and Pedagogy Committee and an ABET Program Evaluator for ASEE. He was the 2002–2006 President of Tau Beta Pi and is a Fellow of the ASEE and IEEE.

A novel framework of knowledge transfer system for construction projects based on knowledge graph and transfer learning

Reflecting on reflection: How educators experience the opportunity to talk about supporting student reflectionAs part of their research into the types of strategies that can help STEM education betteraccomplish its goals, Henderson, Beach, and Finkelstein identified the strategy of helping 1educators become increasingly reflective as teachers as an important area of activity. Thisraises the general question: What are ways to help educators become more reflective? Ofparticular interest to us is the question: How can we help educators grapple with the issue ofpraxis--the issue of bringing one’s beliefs in line with one’s activities?We have had the opportunity to think about how to help educators in the context of a projectthat is, on the surface, about finding ways to support student reflection. Our focus on studentreflection stems from the belief that learners need dedicated opportunities to reflect on theirexperiences in order to connect, learn from, and prepare for future experiences. While studentreflection is considered important, the engineering education community has historicallyfocused little dedicated attention to this issue. As a result, there is a lot to be learned abouthow to support student reflection. At the same, it seems likely that there are pockets ofexpertise among the educators around us.Recently, we have engaged several educators in individual discussions about activities thatthey use to help students engage in reflection. While our original purpose was to learn moreabout the activities, we see evidence of the impact such a discussion can have on theeducators and their practices. We now see that we have been inviting educators to reflect ontheir efforts to support reflection. The educators’ feedback has been that the opportunity totalk through one of their reflection activities was enjoyable, challenging, thought-provoking,and even eye-opening. In their comments about what made the experience valuable, theeducators have been noting issues that are reminiscent of praxis.In this paper we will use a “multiple perspectives methodology” to explore the question--how 2does talking about a reflection activity inform, change, or redirect current educators’ workand approach? A “multiple perspectives methodology” involves making diverse perspectivesvisible through first-hand accounts, and then identifying and explaining themes that areillustrated by the diverse perspectives. A core element of our proposed paper will be first-hand accounts of educators’ experiences with talking about their reflection activities. In thepaper, we will theoretically frame these accounts, and use both sequencing of these accountsand subsequent articulation of themes across the accounts to illustrate the potential for suchconversation to help the educators advance toward Henderson, Beach, and Finkelstein’s idealof being a reflective teacher.Henderson, C., Beach, A., & Finkelstein, N. (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate1STEM instructional practices: an analytic review of the literature. Journal of Research inScience Teaching, 48(8), 952-984.Adams, R., Evangelou, D., English, L, Dias De Figueiredo, A., Mousoulides, N, Pawley, A.,2Schiefellite, C., Stevens, R., Svinicki, M., Trenor, J.M., Wilson, D.M.., (2011). MultiplePerspectives on Engaging Future Engineers, Journal of Engineering Education, 100(1), pp.48-88.

The Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research is the critical reference source for the growing field of engineering education research, featuring the work of world luminaries writing to define and inform this emerging field. The Handbook draws extensively on contemporary research in the learning sciences, examining how technology affects learners and learning environments, and the role of social context in learning. Since a landmark issue of the Journal of Engineering Education (2005), in which senior scholars argued for a stronger theoretical and empirically driven agenda, engineering education has quickly emerged as a research-driven field increasing in both theoretical and empirical work drawing on many social science disciplines, disciplinary engineering knowledge, and computing. The Handbook is based on the research agenda from a series of interdisciplinary colloquia funded by the US National Science Foundation and published in the Journal of Engineering Education in October 2006.

ABSTRACTThis study aims to ascertain how the relationships between structures in the South African engineering education and training system condition the likelihood of the systemic transformation required by the changing contemporary engineering industry. Drawing on social realism as its theoretical framework, this qualitative case study analyses the relationships between the Engineering Council of South Africa, higher education and industry. The findings show that the South African engineering education and training system exhibits a tendency towards maintenance of the status quo and that systemic transformation is therefore unlikely. The relationship that shows the most potential for evolution is that between higher education and industry as their relationship is based on tenuous containment and compromise. The implication of the study is that those interested in engineering education and training should delve beyond curriculum- and pedagogy-based initiatives in order to better understand the likelihood of the occurrence of systemic transformation.

Recent developments in higher education have transformed teaching–learning processes across disciplines, including structural mechanics in civil engineering programs. However, reports on innovative teaching practices in structural engineering are scattered, hindering their application in other contexts. This study consolidates and analyzes global research trends in structural mechanics education (from 2014 to 2023), complemented by insights obtained from surveys applied to students, instructors, and senior structural engineers in Colombia. The sample literature comprises 150 Scopus-indexed English articles analyzed with Bibliometrix. Eight guiding questions serve to characterize the literature, identify predominant pedagogical strategies, and outline future research directions. Results reveal limited collaboration networks, inconsistent keyword usage, and a strong concentration of U.S.-based authors and institutions. Most papers appear in engineering education journals, and the recurrent topics (active learning strategies, digital and virtual resources, and assessment methods) confirm the prevalence of experiential, student-centered approaches. Based on the findings, eight emerging areas should guide future research: sustainability, educational research, non-disciplinary competencies, digital resources, artificial intelligence, innovation, disciplinary competencies, and digital competencies. Also, it is recommended that engineering faculties focus efforts on clarifying competency frameworks, strengthening pedagogical and faculty development, investing in educational technologies and laboratory infrastructure, fostering collaborative networks, and enhancing the visibility of structural mechanics education research.

Object: To understand the progress, hotspots and trends of international engineering education research and development, and provide reference for further research through visual analysis of papers published in 3 engineering education journals of SSCI. Methods: We use the Web of Science database as the search source, select of Engineering Education, of Professional Issues in Engineering and Practice, International Journal of Engineering Education for publications, and obtain article type documents published in the above journals from 2010 to 2019. We Use the information visualization analysis software called Citespace to perform statistical analysis, and understand the author groups, publishing institutions, research hotspots, time evolution and frontier fields. Results: A total of 2,323 papers are included in this study, and the number of papers published each year is between 201 and 253. International Journal of Engineering Education is the journal with the most papers, Purdue University is the institution with the most papers, and Borrego, M. is the author who published the most papers. As of September 27, 2020, the average number of paper citations is 6.4, the H-index index is 47, the overall number of citations reached 8941, and a total of 15 papers have been cited more than 80 times; a total of 27 keywords frequency reached 50 times, and the keywords formed 7 clusters. Conclusion: In the past 10 years, international engineering education research has developed well. American universities are more prominent in this field, forming a number of high-level research institutions and core author groups to lead relevant research development; the research hotspots included educational innovation and communication, curriculum design, teaching reform, student motivation survey, Interdisciplinary development, conceptual enlightenment, quality evaluation, etc. are the focus of the industry; assessment tools, gender, sustainability, ethics, computer engineering education, educational technology, virtual reality.

Survey Analysis of Engineering Graduate Students' Perspectives on the Skills Necessary for Career Success in Industry and AcademiaThe current research explores doctoral students’ perspectives on the skills that are essential tocareer success as an engineering PhD. Past research has explored essential skills for engineeringPhD holders primarily using reports and ratings from those who have earned a PhD inengineering and are currently working in industry (Watson & Lyons, 2011) or academia(Authors, 2011). This body of work has been influential in determining what faculty membersbelieve are the skills that graduate students should develop during their educational training.However, graduate students' willingness to participate in opportunities to develop those skills islikely to depend on what skills they perceive as essential to their career success and important forthem to develop during graduate studies. Research in the past ten years has been successful inindentifying the skills that engineering professionals deem to be important, but it is equallyimportant to know the degree to which graduate students themselves share these perspectives.The current study builds on prior work (Authors, 2011). Using coded interview responses from40 engineering PhD professionals working in either industry or academia, the researchersdesigned a survey to explore what skills graduate engineering students believe are necessary forcareer success and to what degree they believe those skills should be developed during theirgraduate training. The skills that were selected for inclusion in the survey represent those thatwere most frequently indentified by the engineering professionals during one-on-one interviews.Because professionals from industry were underrepresented among the interview participants,additional skills and attributes relevant to engineering careers in industry were included based onwork by Watson & Lyons (2011).The initial survey included 91 items. For each item, participants indicated 1) the degree to whichthey believed the listed skill was important to their future successful job performance and 2) howwell their Ph.D. program had prepared them in that area. This paper describes the statisticaltrends that resulted from analyzing participants’ responses to the survey items and identifies theskills that graduate students perceive as most important to their future career success. Thefindings of this study will be used assess agreement between graduate students and engineeringprofessionals regarding what skills are necessary. This research has practical implications forcurricular improvements in doctoral engineering education. It can be used to modify courses andmethods of instruction to help students recognize and build the skills essential for career success. ReferencesWatson, J., & Lyons, J. (2011). Aligning academic preparation of engineering Ph.D. programs with the needs of industry. International Journal of Engineering Education, 27, 1394- 1411.Authors (2011). Removed for blind review.

Reviewed by: Too Few Women at the Top: The Persistence of Inequality in Japan by Kumiko Nemoto Kaye Broadbent (bio) Too Few Women at the Top: The Persistence of Inequality in Japan. By Kumiko Nemoto. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 2016. viii, 282 pages. $49.95. In a glowing article on the independence and forthrightness of Japan’s first lady, Abe Akie, the Japan Times quoted her as saying in 2015 that “Japanese women are held back by pressure from men to be ‘cute’ rather than ‘capable and hardworking.’”1 This theme is covered in a substantial portion of Kumiko Nemoto’s book, Too Few Women at the Top: The Persistence of Inequality in Japan. Nemoto investigates why there are so few women managers (only 10 per cent of Japan’s managers are women [p. 3]) in five of Japan’s large corporations. Japan is a significant economy in the world market, but according to international reports on the global gender gap it ranks 105th of 136 countries (p. 3). Japanese women’s enrollment in higher education was 46 per cent in 2012, yet only 15 per cent of women were lower-level managers in 2011 (p. 3), indicating that a deficit in human capital is not the problem. And, as Nemoto notes, “it is likely that further growth in women’s education in Japan will not greatly affect the number of women managers” (p. 3). The book is extensively researched across an interesting mix of industries and companies: two cosmetic companies, two investment firms (one of which is U.S. owned), and a bank. By including a U.S.-owned company, Nemoto is able to examine management style as a factor affecting women’s rise to senior positions. Despite changes and shifts in the dominant “lifetime” employment system, Nemoto shows us life for Japanese workers in the large corporations [End Page 237] showcased has not improved greatly. The introduction of merit-based pay and family-leave policies, which mark an adjustment to the “lifetime” employment system, has made a difference for some workers, but overall there is little evidence these changes have yielded positive gains for employees in the corporations she examines. The 2015 suicide of 24-year-old Takahashi Matsuri from excessive work (karōshi) is a recent example of the culture of long working hours which exists in large Japanese organizations, and references to excessive work and overtime resonate throughout Nemoto’s interviews with employees in these five firms. In investigating the conditions for employees in Japan’s major corporations, including cosmetics firms which are considered “female friendly,” Nemoto deftly characterizes the daily work experiences of women and men trying to survive within the companies. It’s grim reading, with no silver lining that I could detect. The book makes two important contributions. The first is more workplace evidence through an analysis of employment conditions, promotion opportunities, and organizational culture in the five large workplaces. None of these features of these industries in Japan has been well researched in English. Nemoto’s study includes evidence of the impact of family leave policies and men’s attitudes toward and perceptions of women managers in particular in the context of the continuing economic downturn and growing employment insecurity. In this way, the book provides an update of employment conditions in Japan for both women and men. While the insights offered into the situation of white-collar women workers will be familiar to readers knowledgeable about gender and employment in Japan, the book does offer more evidence from different industries. There are interviews with women who have been promoted to management positions—often having to mimic the work behaviors of their male management colleagues—and become “Queen Bees.” They describe their success as a trade-off for a personal life, personal time, and a family. A number of women encountered by Nemoto had thrived in this work lifestyle, while others had clearly burnt out or opted for less-demanding career tracks. Opting out of the career track and taking what is viewed as a “lesser” path has meant forgoing promotion opportunities and financial rewards. In focusing on these themes, Nemoto’s book stands as a complement and an addition to the...

The integration of digital technology in engineering education is essential for improved learning outcomes and to adequately prepare engineering graduates for the demands of a rapidly transforming industry. This article examines the implementation of digital technology in Nigerian educational institutions. The study identifies drivers of digital technology in engineering education from previous literature. The mean rating of each of these drivers was computed and ranked based on importance. Further exploratory factor analysis revealed four major clusters: Institution Capacity Building, Academic Excellence and Support, Technology Enablement and Support, and Flexible Learning Solutions. These clusters represent the fundamental sectors that promote digital inclusion in the engineering educational system. The results provide a holistic overview of segments that could be addressed to transform engineering education through technology inclusion. By concentrating on the highlighted four crucial areas, institutions can provide a more impactful, holistic, and flexible learning environment for engineering students thus producing engineers that will adequately meet the changing demands of the industry.